Labor Review Volume 14, Number 1, Winter 2017

Transcription

1 ISSN Japan Labor Review Volume 14, Number 1, Winter 2017 Special Edition Combining Work and Family Care Articles Current Situation and Problems of Legislation on Long-Term Care in Japan s Super-Aging Society Kimiyoshi Inamori Family Care Leave and Job Quitting Due to Caregiving: Focus on the Need for Long-Term Leave Shingou Ikeda Choices of Leave When Caring for Family Members: What Is the Best System for Balancing Family Care with Employment? Mayumi Nishimoto Frameworks for Balancing Work and Long-Term Care Duties, and Support Needed from Enterprises Yoko Yajima Current Issues regarding Family Caregiving and Gender Equality in Japan: Male Caregivers and the Interplay between Caregiving and Masculinities Mao Saito Article Based on Research Report Job Creation after Catastrophic Events: Lessons from the Emergency Job Creation Program after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake Shingo Nagamatsu, Akiko Ono JILPT Research Activities The Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training

2 EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Kazuo Sugeno, The Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training EDITORIAL BOARD Tamayu Fukamachi, The Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training Hiromi Hara, Japan Women s University Yukie Hori, The Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training Shingou Ikeda, The Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training Minako Konno, Tokyo Woman s Christian University Yuichiro Mizumachi, Tokyo University Hiroshi Ono, Hitotsubashi University Tadashi Sakai, Hosei University Hiromi Sakazume, Hosei University Masaru Sasaki, Osaka University Tomoyuki Shimanuki, Hitotsubashi University Hisashi Takeuchi, Waseda University Mitsuru Yamashita, Meiji University The Japan Labor Review is published quarterly in Spring (April), Summer (July), Autumn (October), and Winter (January) by the Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training. EDITORIAL OFFICE The Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training Research and Information Service Department 8-23, Kamishakujii 4-chome, Nerima-ku, Tokyo , Japan TEL: FAX: Homepage: Printed in Japan 2017 by the Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training All rights reserved.

3 Japan Labor Review to Start Life Anew Readers may like to know that our Japan Labor Review, published as an English-language quarterly on Japanese labor topics since January 2004, is to start life in a completely new guise after this issue. May we take this opportunity to express our sincere thanks for your interest in Japan Labor Review until now. As a successor to Japan Labor Review, the Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training (JILPT) plans to publish a new English-language journal from 2017 (title, publication date and frequency to be decided). The new publication will maintain the basic principles of Japan Labor Review and will continue to present research papers, but will also provide the latest information and data on labor in Japan. It will serve as a medium for introducing hot topics in the Japanese labor field to a global audience in English, aimed at a broad-ranging readership that will include not only researchers but also people working in industry, labor relations, governments and the media. We hope the new publication will enjoy the same patronage and support as its predecessor. Kazuo Sugeno Editor-in-Chief, Japan Labor Review The Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training (JILPT)

4

5 Japan Labor Review Volume 14, Number 1 Winter 2017 CONTENTS Combining Work and Family Care Articles 8 Current Situation and Problems of Legislation on Long-Term Care in Japan s Super-Aging Society Kimiyoshi Inamori 25 Family Care Leave and Job Quitting Due to Caregiving: Focus on the Need for Long-Term Leave Shingou Ikeda 45 Choices of Leave When Caring for Family Members: What Is the Best System for Balancing Family Care with Employment? Mayumi Nishimoto 68 Frameworks for Balancing Work and Long-Term Care Duties, and Support Needed from Enterprises Yoko Yajima 92 Current Issues regarding Family Caregiving and Gender Equality in Japan: Male Caregivers and the Interplay between Caregiving and Masculinities Mao Saito Article Based on Research Report 112 Job Creation after Catastrophic Events: Lessons from the Emergency Job Creation Program after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake Shingo Nagamatsu, Akiko Ono 132 JILPT Research Activities

6 Introduction Combining Work and Family Care Although the various research that has addressed the difficulties of balancing work and family life over the years has generally focused on issues related to raising children, increasing attention is being given to the task of caring for older people as an important family responsibility as developed countries grapple with declining birthrates and aging populations. Among such countries, Japan is experiencing population aging at a particularly rapid pace. Japan s rate of population aging namely, the percentage of people aged 65 or over among the total population is currently the highest in the world, at over 25%. In that sense, Japan is at the forefront of super-aging society. In the past, the Japanese government has looked to other countries such as the US and European nations as guides in formulating its policies, but in the field of policies related to older people, Japan may be facing issues that are yet to arise in other countries. This edition was compiled on the basis of the concept that a publication of articles which grasp the development of such issues has the potential to be a valuable source of information for researchers and policymakers in other countries. The first article in this edition, Current Situation and Problems of Legislation on Long-Term Care in Japan s Super-Aging Society by Kimiyoshi Inamori, investigates issues concerning policies to support caregiving for older people in Japan from the perspective of both the long-term care insurance system and the system of caregiver leave. While the long-term care insurance system, which was first implemented in 2000, may try to provide sufficient benefits for older people who require long-term care, this system alone does not in fact necessarily always meet all of their care needs. Family caregiving is therefore required to complement long-term care insurance services. As the system of caregiver leave established in the Child Care and Family Care Leave Act was created to allow people with family members requiring care to take time to prepare and arrange a system for that care to be provided, income guarantees for workers on caregiver leave are provided in the form of caregiver leave benefits from the employment insurance system. However, noting that the percentage of workers who actually take caregiver leave is extremely low, Inamori suggests that to assist workers in balancing work with family care it is more important to develop schemes related to ways of working, such as short working hour systems or limits on overtime work. The issues raised in this article such as the need to increase the take up rate of caregiver leave and develop the system through measures for reduced working hours and limitations on overtime work, are key points that have been addressed in the amendments to the Child Care and Family Care Leave Act that will take effect in The revised act makes caregiver leave easier to use by allowing caregivers to take the 93 days of leave in three segments. It has also increased the minimum period during which employers are obliged to provide measures such as short working hours and other such schemes for re-

7 ducing working hours, etc. (also including flextime, pushing the time of starting or finishing work forward or backward, and subsidizing the costs of long-term care), which allow caregivers to balance daily caregiving responsibilities with work, from the current 93 days to three years. The Act also guarantees workers the right to restrictions on overtime working hours until the end of caregiving. In Family Care Leave and Job Quitting Due to Caregiving: Focus on the Need for Long-Term Leave, I investigate the potential effects of these amendments to the Child Care and Family Care Leave Act, as well as identifying new issues that require further examination. Based on the results of analysis of data on workers who are employed when caregiving begins, the article reveals that (i) the greater the need to take caregiver leave, the less likely working caregivers are to remain continuously employed at the same enterprise from the beginning to the end of the caregiving period, but the need for caregiver leave can be alleviated through the use of long-term care services, (ii) regardless of the degree of need to take caregiver leave, workers who work six hours or less per day are more likely to remain continuously employed at the same enterprise than those who work over eight hours a day, and (iii) those who care for their own parents have a greater need for caregiver leave than those who care for the parents of a spouse, but regardless of the necessity for caregiver leave, among workers who provide care alone without assistance from their families, and workers who care for relatives with severe dementia, there is a low likelihood of continuous employment at the same enterprise. In other words, it can be said that a factor behind the low numbers of people taking caregiver leave is the increase in the use of services offered through long-term care insurance. However, social changes such as the increase in people caring for their own biological parents and the rise in people who care for relatives alone without other family members to assist them suggest the possibility that in the future there will continue to be an increase in the number of people leaving their employment due to caregiving responsibilities. The analysis results indicate that in order to curb this increase, in addition to the caregiver leave system, it is also important to develop systems such as short working hours and limitations on overtime hours. In this sense, the recent amendments to the Child Care and Family Care Leave Act are suited to addressing the current circumstances under which people leave employment to provide care. At the same time, as the current framework was developed with the necessity for physical care that arises in the case of cerebrovascular diseases and other such conditions in mind, it may not cover social measures to support care for dementia, and this article also highlights the importance of such measures as an issue that will require more extensive consideration in the future. Since the amendments that took effect in 2010, the Child Care and Family Care Leave Act has prescribed the obligation of enterprises to provide not only long-term caregiver leave but also time off for caregivers that can be taken in one-day units, and with the introduction of the 2017 amendments caregivers will be able to take this time off in half-day units. Mayumi Nishimoto s Choices of Leave When Caring for Family Members: What Is the Best System for Balancing Family Care with Employment? investigates the

8 necessity of not only leave that can be taken on a long-term basis, but also a flexible time-off system like time off for caregivers. The results of the analysis reveal the following five points. Firstly, when the main caregiver ratio is higher, the likelihood of taking caregiver leave increases, and absenteeism is particularly likely. Secondly, leave is more likely to be taken when the spouse works longer hours, especially when the spouse s employment format precludes the control of those working hours. The likelihood of absenteeism is also higher if the spouse is a regular employee, and the likelihood of taking annual leave increases more or less significantly when the spouse is a regular employee or non-regular employee, or when there is no spouse. Thirdly, the likelihood that leave will be taken rises in cases where the person requiring care is admitted to a general hospital or geriatric hospital and in such cases caregiver leave and annual leave are particularly likely to be taken. Fourthly, absenteeism is more likely to occur when the caregiver has a lower annual income. Fifthly, absenteeism is also more prone to occur if the person is not a regular employee. In other words, this indicates that depending on the environment of family caregiving, there is also a demand not only for caregiving leave that can be taken on a long-term basis, but also time off that caregivers can take in single-day units. As is also indicated in the aforementioned articles, balancing work and caregiving is shaped by various environmental factors, such as social services and support from enterprises, as well as the factors highlighted by Nishimoto in relation to family environment. In Frameworks for Balancing Work and Long-Term Care Duties, and Support Needed from Enterprises, Yoko Yajima focusses on the correlations between these various fields, pursuing quantitative analysis based on the hypothesis that the quality of the balance of work and care ( subjective sense that balance is achieved, and preservation of a feeling that work is rewarding ) differs depending on the frameworks and circumstances surrounding the balance of work and care. In doing so she looks at these frameworks and circumstances surrounding the balance of work and care from the five perspectives of attributes of the caregiver, attributes of the care recipient, the relationship between these two people and the role the caregiver plays, the long-term care framework (including the use of long-term care services, and cooperation from other family members), and the caregiver s work style or format (flexible work schedules and utilization of leave, etc.). The results of this analysis reveal that while caring for an elderly relative appears at first glance to place caregivers in circumstances that are more complex and diverse than those faced when raising children, if factors such as the attributes of the care recipient, the relationship between the caregiver and care recipient, and the long-term care framework are controlled, the types of support that employees seek from enterprises with regard to working styles and formats entail curtailing excessively long working hours, creating an environment in which time off can be taken flexibly and support programs can be utilized with ease, and supervisors consideration for employees circumstances, and there is hardly any difference between these forms of support and the type of work environment required for employees raising children to achieve work-life balance. However, given that if the care framework required for bal-

9 ancing work and long-term care duties is not in place, support related to work style and format from enterprises will not function effectively, Yajima highlights that it is therefore important that enterprises do not merely offer such support in terms of work styles and formats, but also encourage caregivers, who often try to handle duties directly by themselves, to focus on the management of care services and division of duties, that is, using long-term care services and other such support effectively and dividing duties among family members. The final article in this journal, Current Issues regarding Family Caregiving and Gender Equality in Japan: Male Caregivers and the Interplay between Caregiving and Masculinities by Mao Saito, examines the problems faced by family caregivers in Japan from the perspective of gender. More specifically, Saito focuses on the increasing numbers of male caregivers in Japan, and investigates what significance the increase in male caregivers may have for the achievement of gender equality in family caregiving, in light of the actual conditions of caregiving by male caregivers. Contemporary family caregiving is inseparable from the gender relationship between men as the breadwinners and women as the caregivers. At the same time, in Japan as in other countries, changes in family structures are leading to a growing number of situations in which men must take on caregiving roles. As men take on caregiving roles, they are forced to confront their own masculinities, and by looking at the difficulties faced by male caregivers, this article demonstrates that care and masculinities are not simply conflicting aspects of men s identities. In discourse on welfare regimes, Japan is considered to be a conservative regime in which the family takes the key role in providing care. However, as family sizes decline along with decreases in birth rates, it is becoming difficult to rely on families to provide care, and efforts have been made to supplement family care by socializing caregiving through the development of public long-term care services and company-based support for balancing work and caregiving. Countries with social democratic regimes in which the government typically provides substantial policies for supporting elderly people and liberal regimes characterized by small government models may find that the onset of super-aging society necessitates some kinds of changes to their frameworks. We hope that this edition provides useful insights to readers who are aware of such issues. Shingou Ikeda The Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training

10 Current Situation and Problems of Legislation on Long-Term Care in Japan s Super-Aging Society Kimiyoshi Inamori Kyoto University The long-term care insurance system, introduced in 2000, has promoted the socialization of long-term care and helped to reduce the burden on families with elderly relatives who need long-term care. But while the purpose of the long-term care insurance system is to provide a necessary and sufficient level of benefits for elderly persons in need of long-term care, the system alone does not necessarily meet all of their care needs. As a result, family care or services other than long-term care insurance are required to complement long-term care insurance services. The system of care leave based on the Child Care and Family Care Leave Act was established as a preparatory period with the aim of building a system for long-term care of family members in need of such care; income guarantees during the care leave period are provided in the form of care leave benefits from the employment insurance system. However, the rate of care leave actually taken remains at an extremely low level, despite progress by businesses in establishing related regulations. What is more important is to create schemes for working formats, such as short working hour systems or limits on overtime work, to assist workers in balancing everyday and continuous employment with family care. I. Introduction What kind of long-term care has been sought by the Japanese legal system until now? Amid the ongoing trends toward birth rate decline and population aging, various initiatives are currently being promoted in the field of guaranteed elderly care, including promotion of the integrated community care system. These have their sights set on the year 2025, when the baby boom generation will pass the age of 75. This paper will examine developments to date in various legislation on long-term care for the elderly, and study existing problems. The principal focus will be on the Long-Term Care Insurance Act, which is mainly responsible for guaranteeing public care services for elderly persons in need of long-term care, the Child Care and Family Care Leave Act, 1 which helps workers who have elderly relatives in a care-requiring condition to balance their employment with family care, and the Employment Insurance Act, which is responsible for income guarantees during periods of care leave. 1 The full name of this law, at present, is the Act on the Welfare of Workers Who Take Care of Children or Other Family Members Including Child Care and Family Care Leave. 8

11 Legislation on Long-Term Care in Japan s Super-Aging Society II. The Basic Structure of Existing Legislation on Guaranteed Care 1. The System of Long-Term Care Insurance Since the Long-Term Care Insurance Act came into effect in April 2000, long-term care insurance has been central to the system for guaranteeing public care services. Persons insured under long-term care insurance are those who are domiciled in the catchment area of a municipality and are 65 years of age or more ( primary insured persons ) and those insured by public medical insurance who are domiciled in a municipality and are between the ages of 40 and 64 ( secondary insured persons ). The system is mainly funded by contributions from insured persons and their employers. When an insured person enters a condition of need for long-term care, etc., is certified as such, and receives long-term care insurance services from a designated operator or similar, based on a service utilization agreement, 90% of the service cost is paid as insurance benefits. 2 The Long-Term Care Insurance Act states that necessary insurance benefits shall be provided for conditions of need for long-term care, etc., of the insured person (Article 2 para. 1 of the Act), and that With regard to the contents and level of insurance benefits, consideration must be given so that the insured is able to live an independent daily life according to that person s own abilities in his or her home as much as possible, even if said insured person enters a condition of need for long-term care (Article 2 para. 4). In reality, however, for those living at home, a maximum payment commensurate with the need for long-term care has been set for non-residential in-home services and community-based services that are provided (in combination) based on an in-home service plan ( care plan ) (Article 43 para. 1). 3 This means that there is an upper limit to the volume of long-term care insurance services that can be received (though full services can be received by paying the whole amount in excess of the maximum limit (= combined long-term care )). For those admitted to a facility, the minimum required care services are provided by the intensive care home for the elderly or other admitting facility by establishing remuneration for comprehensive long-term care, but many people are waiting to be admitted owing to a supply shortage. Thus, Japan s long-term care insurance does not necessarily meet all the care needs of each person in need of such care % in the case of higher earners. In reality, users pay their own contribution of 10% or 20% to the service provider, and the remaining 90% or 80% is paid by the insurer to the service provider as remuneration for long-term care. Meanwhile, the cost of creating care plans is covered 100% by benefits, so that the user pays nothing. 3 Besides this, if a specific service is lacking, municipalities may stipulate a base amount of maximum payment for the categories of allowances at their own discretion, but there are few examples of this in practice. 4 When calculating long-term care insurance premiums, the volume of long-term care insurance services needed in each three-year period (a fiscal unit) is estimated for each level of long-term care need, and insurance premiums are set by calculating back from the amount needed for the corresponding benefits. In that sense, compared to the German long-term care insurance system, where levels of insurance benefits are set within a range that can be covered by long-term care insurance finances, Japan s long-term care insurance has been described as a necessary and sufficient benefit 9

12 Japan Labor Review, vol. 14, no. 1, Winter Care Service Guarantee Systems Other than Long-Term Care Insurance There are various publicly funded systems guaranteeing care services other than long-term care insurance, which are used to complement the long-term care insurance system. Specifically, these are welfare safeguard measures under the Act on Social Welfare for the Elderly, independence support benefits based on the Act on Comprehensive Support for Persons with Disablities (ACSPD), 5 and care assistance based on the Public Assistance Act. Since the Long-Term Care Insurance Act came into effect, welfare safeguard measures under the Act on Social Welfare for the Elderly (ASWE) have mainly been applied when it is difficult to use long-term care insurance, such as in emergencies, or when an adult guardian needs to be secured in order to enter an agreement for the use of services (ASWE Articles 10 4, 11). As independence support benefits based on the Act on Comprehensive Support for Persons with Disabilities, persons with disabilities may receive payments of care benefits for in-home care and other disabled welfare services (ACSPD Article 28 para. 1 onwards). Long-term care insurance takes precedence when those services are also being received (Article 7), meaning that independence support benefits serve to supplement or augment long-term care insurance. 6 For welfare recipients, because those aged 65 and over contribute to long-term care insurance as primary insured persons, the precedence of long-term care insurance means that amounts equivalent to long-term care insurance premiums are paid as additional long-term care insurance premiums for livelihood assistance, and a user contribution is paid type (Masanobu Masuda, Nihon to doitsu no kaigo hoken-kan no soui [Differences between Japanese and German long-term care insurance], Shukan Shakai Hosho, no (2014), p.32). Nevertheless, certification of the level of long-term care need is focused solely on the individual s ability to perform daily living activity, irrespective of the care environment in which each person in a care-requiring condition is placed. As such, the required volume of long-term care is calculated from the hours of care, and therefore does not necessarily meet the actual care needs of each individual in a care-requiring condition. Unlike medical services, the volume of services required for long-term care is difficult to quantify objectively in the first place, and therefore, in the long-term care insurance system, combined long-term care is permitted as it takes the form of monetary benefits. In that sense, Japan s long-term care insurance system is also partial insurance (Shuzo Tsutsumi, Kaigo hoken no imiron: Seido no honshitsu kara kaigo hoken no korekara wo kangaeru [Semantics of long-term care insurance: Considering the future of long-term care insurance based on the essence of the system], (Tokyo: Chuo Hoki Shuppan, 2010), p.48). 5 The full name is the Act to Comprehensively Support the Daily Life and Social Life of Persons with Disabilities. 6 On the application relationship between independence support benefits based on the Act to Comprehensively Support the Daily Life and Social Life of Persons with Disabilities and the long-term care insurance system (03/28/07 Shōkihatsu No , Shōshōhatsu No ). However, long-term care insurance services are not uniformly given precedence, but rather an individual judgment is to be made as to whether long-term care insurance services corresponding to disabled welfare services are to be received (Shogaisha Fukushi Kenkyukai, ed., Chikujo kaisetsu shogaisha sogo shien ho [Article-by-article commentary on the Act on Comprehensive Support for Persons with Disabilities], (Tokyo: Chuo Hoki, 2013), p.79). 10

13 Legislation on Long-Term Care in Japan s Super-Aging Society when using long-term care insurance services (10% in principle) as care assistance, respectively. On the other hand, welfare recipients aged under 65 are exempt from the application of national health insurance, and therefore do not contribute to long-term care insurance. As a result, the necessary care services are provided as care assistance for welfare support. As to welfare safeguard measures and the payment of care benefits, one may discern a degree of administrative discretion on decisions for or against, and on the details. As shown above, the system of public guaranteed care services does not necessarily always meet the care needs of each individual in need of long-term care, etc.; in some cases, it needs to be supplemented by care provided by the family itself or by private care services other than long-term care insurance. 3. System Based on the Child Care and Family Care Leave Act Changes in family composition, in the form of the progressive nuclearization of the family and women s advancement into the labor market, combined with other factors including the prolongation of care accompanying increased longevity due to advances in medicine, have had a major impact on the nature of family care. Elderly people living alone or in husband-and-wife households have increased, and a growing problem is to ascertain which family member should be responsible for long-term care. While people in employment are increasingly taking care of family members, the Child Care and Family Care Leave Act (CCFCLA) specifies several ways of facilitating a balance between employment and care. Firstly, there is the system of taking family care leave to care for a subject family member in a care-requiring condition (CCFCLA Article 2 para. 2). Workers (except day laborers) may take care leave by submitting a request to their employer, specifying (1) that the subject family member pertaining to the care leave request is in a care-requiring condition, and (2) the first and last days of the care leave period (Article 11 paras. 1 and 3). However, employees on fixed-period contracts may only do so when they have been employed by the same employer continuously for at least one year at the time of the request, and when it is not certain that the labor contract will have expired within six months after the 93 days allocated for care leave. Workers with an employment period of less than one year, those whose employment relationship will end within 93 days, and those whose contractual working days are two or fewer days per week may be made ineligible by a labor-management agreement. A care-requiring condition is defined as a condition requiring constant care for a period of two weeks or more due to injury, sickness, or physical or mental disability (Article 2 (iii), Enf. Regs. Article 1). The standards for judging a condition requiring constant care are set out in Ministry notices, 7 and there is no direct connection with situations requiring 7 On the enforcement of the Act on the Welfare of Workers Who Take Care of Children or Other Family Members Including Child Care and Family Care Leave (12/28/09 Shokuhatsu 1228 No. 4, 11

14 Japan Labor Review, vol. 14, no. 1, Winter 2017 care under long-term care insurance. A subject family member is defined as a spouse (including de facto marital relationships), parent, child, or parent of a spouse, or a grandparent, sibling or grandchild who is cohabiting with and dependent on the worker (Article 2 (iv), Enf. Regs. Article 3). Up to now, care leave may be taken in a single block for a total of up to 93 days per subject family member in a care-requiring condition, but a 2016 amendment of the Act made it possible to take leave in three segments from January When measures to reduce working hours or similar are taken, the period in question shall total no more than 93 days. Employers who have received a request for care leave may not refuse that request (Article 12 para. 1). However, when the scheduled start date of the requested care leave is less than two weeks after the date of the request, employers may designate any day after said scheduled start date within that two week period as the scheduled start date (Article 12 para. 3). Secondly, there are measures to reduce working hours. Employers are under obligation to take such measures for workers in their employ (except day laborers) who take care of subject family members in care-requiring condition, for a period exceeding 93 consecutive days (a minimum of 93 days combined with the days of care leave) based on a request from the worker, for each subject family member and for each care-requiring condition. Specifically, employers must use one of the measures of (1) a system of shortened contractual working hours, (2) a flextime system (Article 32 3 of the Labor Standards Act), (3) advancing or delaying the time of starting or finishing work, and (4) a system of subsidizing the cost of care services used by workers, or some other system equivalent to these (CCFCLA Article 23 para. 3). However, workers with less than one year of employment and those with two or fewer contractual working days per week are ineligible for these measures when a labor-management agreement has specified them as exempt from measures to reduce contractual working hours or similar. These measures have been created for workers who, for one reason or other, do not take care leave for the requisite period. 8 Thirdly, there is the system of taking time off for care. Workers (except day laborers) who are taking care of subject family members in a care-requiring condition, or otherwise providing care as stipulated in ordinances of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, may be granted time off to give said care (time off for care) upon request to their employers, within a limit of five days per fiscal year in the case of one subject family member in a care-requiring condition, or ten days per fiscal year in the case of two or more subject family members (Article 16 5 para. 1). However, this shall not include workers with an employment period of less than six months, or, of those with two or fewer contractual working days per week, those made ineligible by a labor-management agreement. From January Kojihatsu 1228 No. 2). 8 Romu Gyosei, ed., Kaitei-ban shosetsu ikuji kaigo kyugyoho [Detailed Commentary on the Child Care and Family Care Leave Act], revised edition (Tokyo: Romu Gyosei, 2005), p

15 Legislation on Long-Term Care in Japan s Super-Aging Society 2017, it will be possible to take time off in units of less than one day. When requesting time off for care, (1) the fact that the subject family member pertaining to the request is in a care-requiring condition, and (2) the date on which time off for care will be taken must be specified. Employers who have received a request may not refuse it. Fourthly, there is the limitation on overtime work. When workers who take care of subject family members in a care-requiring condition request such a limitation in order to take care of said subject family member, employers may not extend working hours beyond a limit on overtime work (24 hours per month, 150 hours per year) except when it would impede normal business operations (Article 18, Enf. Regs. Article 31 3). However, this does not apply to day laborers, workers employed for less than one year, or those with two or fewer contractual working days per week. The period subject to such limitation must be at least one month but not more than one year, and must be requested no less than one month prior to the start date ( limitation period scheduled start date ). There is no restriction on the number of times this may be requested. Fifthly, there is the limitation on late-night work. When workers who take care of subject family members in a care-requiring condition request such a limitation in order to take care of said family member, employers may not make them work in the hours between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. ( late-night ) except when it would impede normal business operations. However, this shall not apply to day laborers, workers employed for less than one year, workers who have a family member living in the same household who can take care of the subject family member during late-night (i.e. a family member who is aged 16 or over, who does not work during late-night (including those who work during late-night on a maximum of three days per month), who is not in a situation of difficulty in taking care of the subject family member due to injury, sickness, or physical or mental disability, and who is not due to give birth within six weeks or has given birth within the last eight weeks), those with two or fewer contractual working days per week, or those whose contractual working hours are all during late-night (Article 20, Enf. Regs. Articles 31 11, 31 12). The period subject to such limitation must be at least one month but not more than six months, and shall be requested no less than one month prior to the start date (the limitation period scheduled start date). There is no restriction on the number of times this may be requested. Sixthly, there is the limitation on non-contractual working hours. When workers who take care of subject family members in a care-requiring condition request such a limitation in order to take care of said family member, employers may not make them work beyond contractual working hours during the limitation period (at least one month but not more than one year) except when it would impede normal business operations (Article 16 9). Employers are prohibited from dismissing or otherwise treating workers disadvantageously by reason of said workers requesting or taking the leave, time off, or measures outlined above, or on other similar grounds (Article 23 2). Besides this, employers must, when making changes to the assignment of workers 13

16 Japan Labor Review, vol. 14, no. 1, Winter 2017 that result in a change in the place of employment, give consideration to said workers situation with regard to family care, when such a change in the place of employment would make it difficult for the worker to take care of family members while continuing to work (Article 26). When a worker has quit by reason of family care, the employer must endeavor, whenever necessary, to implement special measures for re-employment or other measures equivalent to the same (Article 27). 4. Care Leave Benefits from the Employment Insurance System During a period of care leave, employers are not obliged to pay wages, as no labor is provided. Instead, when care leave is taken, care leave benefits are paid from the employment insurance system as an employment continuation benefit. Care leave benefits were established under the 1998 amendment to the Employment Insurance Act, and the benefit rate was raised in the 2000 amendment. Under the existing system, (1) when generally insured persons under employment insurance submit a request to their employers and actually take leave in order to care for a specified family member (the generally insured person s spouse, parent, child, or spouse s parent), (2) and when there are at least 12 months in which the basic daily wage is paid for at least 11 days within the two-year period preceding the day on which care leave was started, (3) care leave benefits are paid after the end of care leave subject to an application by the generally insured person (Article 61 6 of the Employment Insurance Act). Care leave benefits are paid as a lump sum by dividing the care leave period into monthly segments, starting from the date of care leave commencement, then calculating and totaling the payment amounts for each monthly segment. The amount paid in each payment unit segment is 40% of the daily wage at the start of the leave multiplied by the number of days of payment, but in the 2016 amendment, this percentage was raised to 67% from August 2016 onwards, as a temporary measure (Supp. Prov. Article 12 2). Since the maximum care leave is 93 days, the maximum period subject to payment of care leave benefits is also three payment unit segments. Moreover, when wages are paid by the employer and the total of wages plus care leave benefits exceeds 80% of the wage before taking leave, care leave benefits are reduced according to the value of the excess. III. Development of Systems of Guaranteed Care Services 1. The Era of Welfare Measures In the past, family care was basically regarded as a matter belonging to the private domain, and was undertaken as part of private support. At the same time, public guaranteed care services were extended to those faced with long-term care needs who cannot rely on private support. Before the advent of long-term care insurance, elderly care needs were handled by an elderly welfare system based on the Act on Social Welfare for the Elderly. Under that system, the necessary services were provided to elderly persons with 14

17 Legislation on Long-Term Care in Japan s Super-Aging Society long-term care needs in the form of welfare measures (including the dispatch of home helpers to those living at home and admission to Intensive Care Homes for the Elderly, among others). Of course, these services were funded from tax revenues, and owing to fiscal constraints in that regard, together with constraints on the supply of services due to insufficient quality and quantity in the provision of services, the system could not necessarily meet all of the long-term care needs faced by each individual elderly person in a care-requiring condition. The government was deemed to have broad-ranging discretion on whether or not to apply measures, and their content, and the limited services available were allocated in order of priority. If admission to a facility was an option, the minimum necessary services were provided within the facility, but as well as the burden of costs on an ability-to-pay basis, the number of facilities was small compared to the numbers seeking admission, giving rise to long waiting lists Enactment and Implementation of the Long-Term Care Insurance Act The Long-Term Care Insurance Act, approved by the Diet in 1997 following many years of deliberation, was implemented from April 2000 after a two-year preparatory period. At first there were concerns over whether use of the system would take off, owing to a traditionally deep-rooted awareness of long-term care based around the family, among other issues. In fact, however, not only was there a dramatic increase in the volume of service provision mainly involving in-home services and residential services, but the Act also opened up a vast array of care needs that had previously been under the radar, and the socialization of long-term care progressed. The volume of service provision increased partly because the door to care service provision had been opened to private business entities other than social welfare corporations (e.g. NPO corporations, health care corporations, agricultural organizations, limited companies and joint stock companies), mainly in the field of in-home services. Subsequent developments in the long-term care insurance system mainly concerned the increased use of long-term care insurance services and the response to this. The question of how to address users needs and ever-growing burdens, intertwined with the concepts of emphasis on in-home care and user orientation raised in the Long-Term Care Insurance Act, would define the way in which the system would develop in future. 3. The Rising Burden of Costs The increased use of services has also brought a rise in costs, in turn causing long-term care insurance premiums to increase as well. The primary insurance premium paid by primary insured persons was 2,911 yen (national average) in Phase 1 (FY ), but continued to rise to 3,293 yen in Phase 2 (FY ), 4,090 yen in Phase 3 9 While the elderly health care system acted as a receptacle for the deficiencies of the elderly welfare system, it gave rise to the problem of social hospitalization (keeping patients hospitalized due to inadequate infrastructure). 15

18 Japan Labor Review, vol. 14, no. 1, Winter 2017 (FY ), 4,160 yen in Phase 4 (FY ), 4,972 yen in Phase 5 (FY ), and 5,514 yen in Phase 6 (FY ). 10 This is the consequence of introducing a system in which the benefits and burdens of social insurance are linked. The basic rule of social insurance is that if the benefits rise, then so too do the premiums. Of course, there is strong resistance to any increase in burdens, but in the case of long-term care insurance, the balance between benefits and burdens needs to be considered even more than in the case of health insurance. This is partly due to inherent differences between the risk of a care-requiring condition and the risk of disease, but also due to a difference in the fiscal structure of the two systems. The difference lies in consideration for the ability of the person insured to personally bear the cost. While funding for long-term care insurance is in principle provided half-and-half by insurance premiums and the public purse, persons aged 65 and over, as primary insured persons, must pay the primary insurance premium as a fixed-amount premium based on income levels. When receiving more than a certain level of public pension income, the premiums are specially levied from pension benefits. As the nuclearization of the family progresses and more elderly people live alone or in husband-and-wife households, this special levy of social insurance premiums represents a very visible reduction in pension income for households that only have pension income as their personal income. Since public finances for care insurance work in three-year cycles, long-term care insurance premiums are stipulated by municipal ordinance for the coming three years every three years, and in the sense of gaining acceptance of burdens, there are also strong political constraints on any increase. 11 By contrast, insurance premiums of secondary insured persons, as the actively working generation, are fixed-rate insurance premiums deducted from wages, and the resistance to burdens is thought to be lower than with primary insurance premiums. Nevertheless, these too cannot be raised limitlessly. This is because, when considering levels of burden, not only do long-term care insurance premiums have to be considered in combination with the health insurance premiums that are levied at the same time, but also, in the case of secondary insured persons, the existing long-term care insurance system only provides limited response to the risk of a care-requiring condition on the part of the secondary insured person. That is, for secondary insured persons themselves to receive benefits from long-term care insurance, their care-requiring condition would have to be caused by a so-called specified disease. As such, burdens of long-term care insurance premiums for secondary insured persons, though not entirely lacking an aspect of being for the sake of their own long-term 10 The more modest rise in Phase 4 resulted from fiscal and other measures using subsidies to improve employment terms for care workers, with a view to avoiding an increase in premiums. 11 Moreover, the contribution ratio between primary and secondary insurance premiums has to be periodically revised in line with the proportions of persons insured, and given an increase in primary insured with progressive population aging, the contribution ratio of primary insurance premiums is continuing to rise gradually. 16

19 Legislation on Long-Term Care in Japan s Super-Aging Society care, could be said to have a strong significance of social assistance or social support for the older generation by actively working generations. 12 It is difficult to gain acceptance of increases in burdens that are not directly linked to a person s own (potential) benefits. If we assume there to be a limit to increases in insurance premiums, the remaining response in terms of burdens would be to raise the contribution from the public purse. In fact, the Long-Term Care Insurance Subcommittee of the Social Security Council did previously discuss a proposal to raise the public burden ratio from the current 50% to 60%, among others, but in the end the matter was shelved. 4. Revision of Benefits When there is limited scope for increasing burdens, the way to maintain the system is to make revisions on the benefits side (optimization or reduction of benefits). In the 2005 amendment, undertaken as a revision five years after enforcement, a major system change was introduced to cope with a sudden increase in the use of long-term care insurance services by persons with only a minor care need. Specifically, categories of support need were revised and preventive care benefits were introduced. Meanwhile, on the regulatory (designatory or supervisory) authority of businesses and others, a new service type consisting of community-based services, regulated by municipalities as insurers, was created as separate from the in-home and institutional services overseen by the prefectures. The intention was to establish a system of small-scale service provision in the sphere of everyday life. Besides this, community general support centers were also introduced, and amendments that pioneered today s integrated community care system were made. The introduction of community-based services was praiseworthy in itself, in that persons in need of long-term care could live normal lives while receiving care services in a form in which they were not uprooted from their existing living environment as far as possible. However, because existing benefit types remained intact when the new benefit type was introduced, this led to a complication of benefit types and made the system harder to understand. While diversification of the benefits menu could be seen as a system response to new needs (or needs not met by existing benefit types), it does also reflect the fact that the various benefit frameworks (e.g. operating criteria, structure for calculating long-term care compensation) are too rigid. On that point, it could also be symptomatic of the fact that Japan s long-term care insurance is heavily based on legislation and official notices, for better or worse, and that there is little room for discretion by insurers (municipalities). The complexity of benefits was further intensified by the 2011 amendment, which added two new types to community-based services. This trend toward diversification (ballooning?) of benefit menus came to an important turning point in the 2014 amendment. Home-visit care and outpatient care aimed at people in need of support were moved away from preventive benefits as statutory benefits and into 12 Tsutsumi, ibid. Note 3) p